keterys
First Post
Eh, it's a little off topic, but I'm kinda interested so let's break this down.
Mathematically speaking:
Standard Monster HP = (Lvl + 1) * 8 + Con, and Con = 13 + Lvl / 2 = 21 + 8.5 * Lvl
So Standard Encounter HP for a group of 5 = 105 + 42 * Lvl
Let's look at some PC damages for, say, 8th level, since that's what I played last night.
8th: Standard Encounter HP = 441
Baseline PC damage is about 2W + Stat (5 or 6) + Enh (2), but most PCs will also have additional options - for example, 2 item, 1 or 2 feat, 1 shard, 2 superior implement, 1-2 dual implement spellcaster, etc. So, let's call this line 2d10 + 10 damage for now, Avg 21. Before folks object that their at-will doesn't do this damage, note that you aren't needing to use your at-wills much under the 2-4 round premise.
Baseline PC accuracy is then 4 + Stat (5 or 6) + Enh (2) + Feat (1) + Prof (3), though again it's possible to add to that with superior implement (1), being a fighter, rogue, seeker, thief (1), etc being pretty common. So, +15 vs. AC, +13 vs. NAD for casters, looking for target AC 22, NAD 20. Hit on a 7 is 70% chance to hit, though CA would make that 80%. 75% is probably fair enough for this approximation.
So, without factoring in the benefits of strikers, leader bonuses, or any of that jazz, we've turned our entire encounter worth of monster hp into (441 hp / (21 * .75)) = 28 attacks.
So, with 5 PCs the encounter is wrapped up in 5.6 rounds, if they only make one attack each. That's pretty far off from 10 rounds, and that's without using any special expenditures at all.
But why would they do that? 1 is a controller, so is hitting 2 targets per round? Two are strikers, so are actually hitting for 50% more damage? The leader is giving out bonuses, and also granting attacks to one of those strikers? They've got action points, which should give them 3 more attacks per encounter? Even that defender gets in on it with an immediate (dimensional vortex, guardian's counter, etc) or multiattack (sweeping blow, astral thunder, etc). That gets you comfortably down to 3 rounds.
Of course, that's ignoring actual optimization which I encounter in almost every group when I DM at conventions. A charging thief at level 8 deals:
1d8 (rapier) + 2d8 (sneak attack) + 1d6 (backstab) + 1d8 (vanguard weapon) + 1d8 (surprising charge) + 1d6 (horned helm) + 6 (Dex) + 2 (Finesse) + 2 (Enh) + 2 (Item) with a 95% accuracy = 5d8 + 2d6 + 12, Avg 41.5 dmg, Crit 73
He needs only 6 attacks to clear an encounter. Somehow the party bard or warlord likes giving him charges too, oddly enough.
Unfortunately, it's also possible for a group to have a pacifist cleric, an enchanter wizard, a fighter with a dagger, and contrive to deal no damage, but that's a choice the group can make and avoid. That route can lead to 10 round combats, it's true. I've also played once in a game where the DM threw a massively overleveled solo soldier in, who then hid in a cloud of darkness, intentionally forcing chance to hit into fairly atrocious levels. That's not really a fun or suggested way to play the game, but I'm sure sessions like that are what make people think that 10 rounds is somehow normal. I shudder at the thought it's somehow average, though.
So, yeah, whatever Next can do to avoid that, it'd be good.
Mathematically speaking:
Standard Monster HP = (Lvl + 1) * 8 + Con, and Con = 13 + Lvl / 2 = 21 + 8.5 * Lvl
So Standard Encounter HP for a group of 5 = 105 + 42 * Lvl
Let's look at some PC damages for, say, 8th level, since that's what I played last night.
8th: Standard Encounter HP = 441
Baseline PC damage is about 2W + Stat (5 or 6) + Enh (2), but most PCs will also have additional options - for example, 2 item, 1 or 2 feat, 1 shard, 2 superior implement, 1-2 dual implement spellcaster, etc. So, let's call this line 2d10 + 10 damage for now, Avg 21. Before folks object that their at-will doesn't do this damage, note that you aren't needing to use your at-wills much under the 2-4 round premise.
Baseline PC accuracy is then 4 + Stat (5 or 6) + Enh (2) + Feat (1) + Prof (3), though again it's possible to add to that with superior implement (1), being a fighter, rogue, seeker, thief (1), etc being pretty common. So, +15 vs. AC, +13 vs. NAD for casters, looking for target AC 22, NAD 20. Hit on a 7 is 70% chance to hit, though CA would make that 80%. 75% is probably fair enough for this approximation.
So, without factoring in the benefits of strikers, leader bonuses, or any of that jazz, we've turned our entire encounter worth of monster hp into (441 hp / (21 * .75)) = 28 attacks.
So, with 5 PCs the encounter is wrapped up in 5.6 rounds, if they only make one attack each. That's pretty far off from 10 rounds, and that's without using any special expenditures at all.
But why would they do that? 1 is a controller, so is hitting 2 targets per round? Two are strikers, so are actually hitting for 50% more damage? The leader is giving out bonuses, and also granting attacks to one of those strikers? They've got action points, which should give them 3 more attacks per encounter? Even that defender gets in on it with an immediate (dimensional vortex, guardian's counter, etc) or multiattack (sweeping blow, astral thunder, etc). That gets you comfortably down to 3 rounds.
Of course, that's ignoring actual optimization which I encounter in almost every group when I DM at conventions. A charging thief at level 8 deals:
1d8 (rapier) + 2d8 (sneak attack) + 1d6 (backstab) + 1d8 (vanguard weapon) + 1d8 (surprising charge) + 1d6 (horned helm) + 6 (Dex) + 2 (Finesse) + 2 (Enh) + 2 (Item) with a 95% accuracy = 5d8 + 2d6 + 12, Avg 41.5 dmg, Crit 73
He needs only 6 attacks to clear an encounter. Somehow the party bard or warlord likes giving him charges too, oddly enough.
Unfortunately, it's also possible for a group to have a pacifist cleric, an enchanter wizard, a fighter with a dagger, and contrive to deal no damage, but that's a choice the group can make and avoid. That route can lead to 10 round combats, it's true. I've also played once in a game where the DM threw a massively overleveled solo soldier in, who then hid in a cloud of darkness, intentionally forcing chance to hit into fairly atrocious levels. That's not really a fun or suggested way to play the game, but I'm sure sessions like that are what make people think that 10 rounds is somehow normal. I shudder at the thought it's somehow average, though.
So, yeah, whatever Next can do to avoid that, it'd be good.
